Ex-Swift boat skipper praises Kerry
Ex-Swift boat skipper praises Kerry
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
By Milan Simonich, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
For 35 years, Rich Baker seldom talked about Vietnam, Swift boats or John Kerry's ability as a young naval officer.
But now, with Republican partisans challenging Kerry's wartime record, Baker said he feels compelled to strike back.
"Every Swift boat officer gave his all in Vietnam, but Kerry stood above the rest of us," said Baker, 61, of Scott, a former Navy lieutenant and Swift boat commander. "He was number one as far as courageousness and aggressiveness. He set the tone."
Campaign aides to Kerry, the Democratic candidate for president, yesterday asked Baker to speak out publicly to counter television ads attacking Kerry's military record.
Baker, who ran a bakery after coming home from Vietnam, complied. He granted a handful of interviews and agreed to appear today at a Pittsburgh news conference organized by the Kerry campaign.
A registered Democrat, Baker voted for Republican George W. Bush for president in 2000. But this time, Baker said, he is supporting Kerry for two reasons.
For one, Baker said, he considers Kerry better qualified than Bush to be commander in chief.
Second, Baker said, he is perturbed that Kerry is being criticized for his service in Vietnam while Bush's activities during wartime receive almost no scrutiny.
"George Bush has two silver dental fillings in his teeth to show what he did during the Vietnam War," Baker said. "John Kerry has a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts."
Bush was in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam era, an assignment that kept him stateside.
Baker, who grew up in Crafton, graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1965, then enlisted for Swift boat duty. He arrived in Vietnam in 1968, just before Kerry.
Kerry served about four months in Vietnam, and, Baker said, he made a habit of putting himself in harm's way.
"You wouldn't want to be there for four hours or four minutes," Baker said. "John Kerry went above and beyond the call of duty, sticking his nose into enemy fire. Not everybody liked that because some were just intent on survival. But until recently, nobody ever said he did not serve honorably."
Attacks on Kerry's war record have come from a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.
But, Baker said, these men never criticized Kerry until he became the Democratic presidential nominee. Baker specifically recalled a 1995 reunion of Swift boat crews in Washington at which praise for Kerry's service in Vietnam was unanimous. Kerry then was the pride of the group as a U.S. senator from Massachusetts.
Each Swift boat was manned by an officer in charge and a five-member crew. During the early stages of the war, they were used as patrol details. But the Navy later turned Swift boats into attack units.
How badly Kerry was injured during the battles he fought has become a central theme of his critics.
Former Sen. Bob Dole, a grievously injured World War II veteran and the 1996 Republican presidential candidate, said over the weekend that Kerry did not deserve his Purple Hearts.
"I respect his record," Dole told CNN. "But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds."
Steve Maguire, president of the U.S. Army Ranger Association, said in an interview yesterday that he did not consider blood a prerequisite for a Purple Heart.
Maguire, who was blinded in Vietnam, said explosions could cause serious injuries that did not necessarily draw blood.
"The awarding of medals is not a science," Maguire said. "Even the Purple Heart has a certain discretion about it."
As an infantry soldier in Vietnam, he said, he considered jungle warfare much more demanding than what Kerry and others faced on Navy details.
"I can't call it cushy duty, but it was not all that dangerous," Maguire said of Swift boats.
Baker disagreed, recalling a hail of enemy fire on his Swift boat that nearly killed him.
Kerry, Baker said, was in peril many times.
"John Kerry should not be alive today," Baker said. "He was aggressive -- more aggressive than the rest of us. That was his nature, and everybody who was there knows it."
Blatham's quote elicits a question--
Just take, for example, that range of names you've provided above and recall their (one for one? damn close) justifications for Abu Ghraib. For torture!
----------
Who here justified torture?
----------
A veteran for truth Letter to the Editor
Letters to the editor
Tulleride Daily Planet
A veteran for truth
Dear Editor,
This letter is in response to the new attacks on John Kerry's war record by a group calling itself the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." As for most veterans of any war and as people who know me will testify, it is not easy for me to talk about my experiences in Vietnam. However, because of these new ads and, I understand, a new book recently published by an old Charles Colson "Enemies List" hit man, I feel compelled to speak out. Unfortunately, the veterans featured in these attacks are being used by extreme right wing Bush supporters to spread their lies and malign John Kerry.
I feel that most of these veterans who are joining this attack are against Kerry for what he did after he was home from the war than for what he did in the war. If they are against him for his stance against the Vietnam War, that certainly is their right, but to spread lies and malicious innuendos about his time on the rivers of Vietnam is not morally right and does a disservice not only to Kerry, but to all those who served and were wounded or died in that war. The people who are using these veterans for their own means obviously do not care about that. They did the same thing to Senator John McCain and Congressman Max Cleland in 2000 with no remorse or care for the consequences.
To me what is worse is that by their silence, the current administration has not, with any real meaning, disavowed itself or distanced itself in anyway from any of these scurrilous attacks, past or present. I feel that this truly shows the Bush administration for what they really are and ultimately, who is truly responsible for these attacks.
Since I happened to be along on one of the "excursions" where the boats that we were on were attacked and after which Lt. Kerry was cited for valor, I thought it appropriate to give my recollection of that event. This happened on March 13, 1969. I was assigned as Psychological Operation Officer for the Swift Boat group out of An Thoi, Vietnam, from January 1969 to October 1969. As such, I was on No. 43 boat, skippered by Don Droz who was later that year killed by enemy fire. We were second in line while exiting the river and going through the opening in a fish trap when a mine blew up under the No. 3 boat directly in front of us and we started taking small arms fire from the beach. Almost immediately, another mine went off somewhere behind us. All boats, except the one hit, immediately wheeled toward the beach that most of the fire came from (a tactic devised by Lt. Kerry, I later learned) and commenced showering the beaches with so much lead, that it could probably be now mined there. The noise was of course, deafening.
Three things that are forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago are: (1) The No. 3, 50-foot long, Swift boat getting huge, huge air; John Kerry thought it was about two feet. (He was farther away from it than I). I think it was at least four feet and probably closer to six feet; (2) All the boats turning left and letting loose at the same time like a deadly, choreographed dance and; (3) A few minutes later, John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river.
The picture I have in my mind of Kerry bending over from his boat picking some hapless guy out of the river while all hell was breaking loose around us, is a picture based on fact and it cannot be disputed or changed. It's a piece of history drawn in my mind that cannot be redrawn. Sorry, "Swift Boats Veterans for the Truth"- that is the truth.
To say that John Kerry or any of us were on that river to intentionally collect Purple Hearts really does every soldier and sailor, past and present, a disservice. We were going up those rivers (with an ongoing casualty rate of 86 percent at the time) on the orders of the same people who approved of Kerry's medals and who are now joining in the attacks against Kerry. Unbelievable.
I would hope that the American public sees these evil extreme right wing attacks for what they really are and also pray that the veterans being used by these unpatriotic right wing extremist political operatives will divorce themselves immediately from them and speak to the real issues as to why they oppose John Kerry. I just don't understand how anyone can align themselves with those who intentionally and gleefully painted a decorated triple amputee (Max Cleland) from Vietnam as unpatriotic. I think that this is the most disastrous, un-American thing that can be done to our servicemen and women, especially now with another unending war going on. Your ends cannot possibly justify these means. Come on!
Jim Russell
Vietnam veteran,
USN (1966-71)
Quote:To say that John Kerry or any of us were on that river to intentionally collect Purple Hearts really does every soldier and sailor, past and present, a disservice. We were going up those rivers (with an ongoing casualty rate of 86 percent at the time) on the orders of the same people who approved of Kerry's medals and who are now joining in the attacks against Kerry. Unbelievable.
It IS unbelievable what people will stoop too...
Cycloptichorn
As I've read this, there were no bullet holes in any of those boats, and they were not small targets. The VC would have to have all been blindfolded and even that might not have sufficed.
de Nile....
My suggestion to some of you demmunists watching in dismay as the gigolo's campaign implodes here would be to ask yourselves how you (and the demmy party) came to such a pass.
The basic answer is that the dem party HAD more viable candidates than the gigolo (not that any RATIONAL person would vote for but easily more viable), but that the Clinton blackops squads torpedoed all of them to keep the way clear for H. Clinton's run for it in 08.
As you watch the dem party being swept into the trash bins of history in a 50-state blowout this november, remember to say
"Thank you, Slick!".
Thanks BBB, I hadnt seen the full text on those two testimonies yet.
As for bullet holes in the boats, a report on "battle damage" to Thurlow's boat from after the day Kerry earned his Bronze Star mentions "three 30 cal bullet holes about super structure." According to Thurlow, at least one must have dated from the day before, though of course the records note incoming fire on that day.
Thanks for the daily dose of complete idiocy, Swolf.
From Blatham's post in another thread:
Quote:
Quote:
Navy Report Backs Kerry Role in Incident
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Navy task force overseeing John Kerry's swift boat squadron in Vietnam reported that his group of boats came under enemy fire during a March 13, 1969, incident that three decades later is being challenged by the Democratic presidential nominee's critics.
The March 18, 1969, weekly report from Task Force 115, which was located by The Associated Press during a search of Navy archives, is the latest document to surface that supports Kerry's description of an event for which he won a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Kerry-Vietnam-Records.html
Are you calling the Navy a liar, Swolf?
Cycloptichorn
Interesting quote, Cyclo.
Also from that article:
Quote:Thurlow, the commander of another swift boat who won a Bronze Star for helping the crew of PCF-3, insists there was no enemy gunfire during the incident. The citation and recommendation for Thurlow's Bronze Star, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, also mention enemy fire, however.
Thurlow's medal recommendation, for example, says he helped the PCF-3 crew "under constant enemy small arms fire.'' That recommendation is signed by George Elliott, another member of the anti-Kerry group. It lists as the only witness for the incident Robert Eugene Lambert, an enlisted man who was not on Kerry's boat who also won the Bronze Star that day.
Hadnt heard of Lambert before. So here we have an account of incoming enemy fire, signed by Elliott, and supported at the time by one further enlisted man, who was not one of Kerry's crewmen. How would that mesh with Thurlow's assertion that the account of enemy fire came from Kerry writing his own report?
This quote is also interesting.
Quote:Thurlow stood by his claim that there was no gunfire that day and said his Bronze Star documents were wrong.
Kerry's campaign has released copies of the after-action report and Kerry's Bronze Star nomination and citation for the incident, but not the weekly report.
McGentrix wrote:This quote is also interesting.
Quote:Kerry's campaign has released copies of the after-action report and Kerry's Bronze Star nomination and citation for the incident, but not the weekly report.
Yeah, odd that innit? Especially since the weekly report, which this NYT article unearths and recounts in detail, actually
reaffirms Kerry's take on the events. As you'll have seen.
Or were you suggesting some kind of, you know, cover-up?
"Kerry refused to release records that back up his story!" Hhmm ...
Not all Nimh, the Illuminati will release whatever records we need to see when we need to see them. There is no need for ME to suggest anything.
There are now some twenty threads on this site devoted to arguments regarding Kerry in Vietnam. Almost all since the swift boat folks appeared.
In contrast, check the politics forum for new or active discussions on Bush policies/performance.
This is typical Rove strategy (he did this in Texas and in the primary) Make negative charges regardless of evidentiary foundation (using surrogates) at some key point close to the election, thus filling up the available media space with hopefully damaging noise, and drawing attention away from his candidate.
Works well, doesn't it?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch....
http://slate.msn.com/id/2105524/
blatham wrote:There are now some twenty threads on this site devoted to arguments regarding Kerry in Vietnam. Almost all since the swift boat folks appeared.
In contrast, check the politics forum for new or active discussions on Bush policies/performance.
This is typical Rove strategy (he did this in Texas and in the primary) Make negative charges regardless of evidentiary foundation (using surrogates) at some key point close to the election, thus filling up the available media space with hopefully damaging noise, and drawing attention away from his candidate.
Works well, doesn't it?
Makes you wish there was a hekll - cos folks is generally too stoopid to punish them in this life....
None of this Swift Boat Stuff really matters. The country is bitterly divided, people have made up their minds already, everyone has dug in their heels.
The debates will do nothing. The campaign ads will do nothing.
An election could be held TODAY, and another in November, and the results would, IMO, be exactly the same.
